address-review ยท diff

git:20261015.08115b5 to git:20261016.df5e1e9

5 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.

---
name: address-review
description: Work through review findings on a PR one at a time
argument-hint: PR number
---
# Address Review
Work through code review findings on a pull request, investigating each one and applying fixes where warranted.
**Always pause for the user's decision on each finding** -- even in auto mode, even if the reviewer or your own assessment recommends skipping. Auto mode grants tool access, not decision authority; the user decides what to fix, skip, or adjust.
Where the project's own rules say otherwise, follow them.
## Process
### 1. Load Review
Determine the PR number from the user's request. Fetch the review comments:
```bash
gh pr view <pr-number> --comments
```
There may be multiple review comments in the history -- use only the most recent one. Parse its findings into a numbered list grouped by severity (Critical > Important > Minor).
### 2. Check Out Branch
Ensure the PR's branch is checked out locally so fixes can be applied. Load the `gitwise:commit-pr-writing` and `gitwise:github-conventions` skills. Check the PR title and description (`gh pr view <pr-number> --json title,body,baseRefName`) against `git diff <baseRefName>...HEAD`, update what no longer holds as `gitwise:commit-pr-writing` says (`gh pr edit <pr-number>`), and tell the user what you changed.
### 3. Walk Through Findings
Work through each finding sequentially. For each one:
1. **Investigate** -- Read the relevant code. Understand whether the finding is a real problem, a theoretical concern, or a false positive. Check how the rest of the codebase handles the same pattern.
2. **Assess** -- Present your assessment to the user: is it a real issue, valid but not applicable here, or wrong? Propose a specific fix or recommend skipping, with reasoning.
3. **Act on user decision** -- Apply the fix, skip it, or adjust based on the user's response.
Do NOT blindly apply every suggestion. Investigate first -- the reviewer may have missed context, flagged a pattern that's intentional, or suggested a fix that creates inconsistency with the rest of the codebase.
When the user agrees to skip a finding, note it and the reason for the round's PR comment (step 5).
### 4. Commit
The user may ask to commit at any point during the review -- commit what's been done so far and continue with the remaining findings. Write each commit message as `gitwise:commit-pr-writing` says. Never push unless the user explicitly asks.
### 5. Close the Round
- Write the round's answers as one PR comment: for each finding, fixed (and where), fixed differently (how and why), or declined (why). Once the round's commits are pushed, post it (`gh pr comment <pr-number> --body "<answers>"`) and check the PR title and description as in step 2. Until then, tell the user the comment is ready and that the PR title and description need that check after the push.
+ Write the round's answers as one PR comment. Title each answer by what the finding asks for, then say: fixed (and where), fixed differently (how and why), already the case (where in the code), or declined (why).
+
+ Post the comment at the end of the round: after its commits are pushed, or straight away if the round made no commit (`gh pr comment <pr-number> --body "<answers>"`). Then update the PR title and description as in step 2, and add each declined finding where `gitwise:commit-pr-writing` says declines go.
+
+ If the round's commits are not pushed yet, tell the user the comment and the update are ready for after the push.